Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush claiming 'Energy Independence' mantle already - UPDATE (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  reduce consumption (6+ / 0-)

    The Energy Policy has to be a top issue for Democrats.  They need to encourage Americans to reduce consumption, and see the value of alternatives like solar, wind, hydrogen. Ethanol takes too much energy to produce if corn and sugar cane are used.

    •  Sugar Cane is the most (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, debel u

      effective way to make EToH.  Not sure why you think it is too energy intensive to do so.  Corn is not a particularly good way to make EToH.

      Reduction of consumption isn't going to happen.  We might reduce the rate of increase, but energy is the currency of the economy.

      The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

      by deathsinger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:09:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Conservation can happen. (0+ / 0-)

        We've seen examples of it.  And we won't have a choice.

      •  NO ... (0+ / 0-)

        Growth in GDP does not require concurrent growth in energy use.

        With changed national policy, fiscal code, regulation (such as decoupling utility profits), the incentive structure in the economy can move to what Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute coined as Negawatts (e.g., that the cheapest new power is energy efficiency in an inefficient system like America's).

        Buildings can be built that are zero GHG footprint (after construction) and, even, produce more renewable power than they use.  Tremendous reductions in building energy use can occur with relatively small investments in the capital investment upfront. (Actually, in many cases, the 'green' construction can be cheaper for a variety of reasons.) Drive code in this way along with restructuring tax code to favor the investment in energy smart choices, and we could see massive change in the infrastructure that goes up.

        And, we can work this throughout the whole economy.

        Reduction of consumption isn't going to happen.  We might reduce the rate of increase, but energy is the currency of the economy.

        This is an overly pessimistic in terms of what is possible -- even if perhaps somewhat realistic. But, massive reduction in use is possible while actually improving lifestyle (it is both more energy efficient and more comfortable to have windows that aren't drafy (sitting under windows that are 1980s good technology but mediocre today and feeling virtually a wind on my back)).

        Energy Consensus: Learn - Connect - Share - Participate: For a new dialogue on Energy issues.

        by A Siegel on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:51:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Name one period of economic growth (0+ / 0-)

          any period of economic growth that energy consumption went down.  One.

          Because the moment people replace those drafty windows with energy efficient ones, they take the money they saved and buy something else (which takes energy to produce).  They don't bury the money in the backyard.

          Sorry to break it to you, but that is the way it works.

          The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

          by deathsinger on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:55:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hydrogen (0+ / 0-)

      is not a solution at all.  We can't just "harvest" hydrogen, we have to use ENERGY to make it.  Unless all hydrogen is produced using clean energy sources such as wind and solar, hydrogen causes more pollution than it prevents.  

      Devour to survive. So it is, so it's always been.

      by debel u on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 09:27:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site